>These insights came quickly, but it was many years before Natapoff>devised his formal mathematical proof. His starting point was the>concept of voting power. In a fair election, he saw, each voterÃÂÃÂs>power boils down to this: What is the probability that one personÃÂÃÂs>vote will be able to turn a national election? The higher the>probability, the more power each voter commands.

I would argue that, by the definition above, each voter has no power. A difference of one vote in millions is not measureable, and thus theprobability is zero that one vote can swing a national election. Asthe present national election demonstrates, a national election whichends in a statistical tie is settled not by votes but by a chaoticlegal and propaganda war, the type of struggle in which theunprincipled rascal has a definite advantage. A single vote isstatistically insignificant and thus cannot break a statistical tie.